RE: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-21 Thread Jason Turnbull
 Terrence Wood wrote:
 Jakob Nielsen responded to my request for clarification

Jacob has used this request for his latest article
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/within_page_links.html

Regards
Jason


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-10 Thread Terrence Wood


My sincerist apologies to Thierry, his interpretation of Nielsen was 
indeed correct. And thanks, I  have certainly learnt something


With reference to the articles Thierry cited earlier Jakob Nielsen 
responded to my request for clarification as follows:



Does this imply that links to content
situated on the same page confuse users? Or, put another way ,is your
recommendation suggesting that all links must load a new document 
into an

existing browser window?


Yes to both.



kind regards
Terrence Wood.




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Terrence Wood
Thierry Koblentz said:
 Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles
 or that I am plain wrong?
Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion
based on that misintrepretation.

Further, you are defending your opinion by simply being contrary and
nothing more (e.g. your claim that divs are hacks; you use skip links on
your site but are argueing here that every link must load an entirely new
document).

 the popup window reference is irrelevant.
 If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links
If you replaced it with chocolate orange cake it would make sense
according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how wrong
that logic is.

What you are calling jump links are nothing more than hypertext links.
Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. W3C define hypertext links
like this: A link is a connection from one web resource to another [1]...
The destination anchor of a link may be an element within an HTML
document.[2]

 It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*
Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed
that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of links
to resources within a page is a convention for the web.

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/links.html#h-12.1
[2]:http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/links.html#h-12.1.1



kind regards
Terrence Wood.


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Al Sparber

From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]


It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*
Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never 
disputed
that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of 
links

to resources within a page is a convention for the web.


I hope to hell I'm not opening a can of worms here. Getting away from 
the FAQ thing to links within documents, I find that sort of 
navigation almost as annoying as popup windows. It might very well be 
a convention, but I do consider it a negative for usability. Very 
distracting - even more so when there are mixed links in the same 
area, some of which scroll to another point in the doc, while others 
load new documents.


Back to the FAQs now :-)

--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling 
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday.





**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Terrence Wood
Al Sparber:
 Very distracting
Are you talking about when there is just the list of links is first and
you must scroll to get the first screen of content?

 - even more so when there are mixed links some scroll to another point,
 others load new documents.
Agreed. This is really about consistency =)

kind regards
Terrence Wood.


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Paul Novitski

At 12:22 PM 2/9/2006, Al Sparber wrote:
Getting away from the FAQ thing to links within documents, I find 
that sort of navigation almost as annoying as popup windows. It 
might very well be a convention, but I do consider it a negative for 
usability. Very distracting - even more so when there are mixed 
links in the same area, some of which scroll to another point in the 
doc, while others load new documents.



These days there are attempts made to distinguish different kinds of 
links -- those to pages within the same site vs. those to external 
sites, and those that bring up pages within the current window vs. 
those that (dog forbid!) open a new window.


If a web designer further distinguished between links that jump 
within a page vs. those that load a new page, would that obviate your 
objection?


In other words, is the problem the mixture of link types leading to 
frustrations of expectation, or is the problem with the local link itself?


Paul 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Al Sparber

From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Al Sparber:

Very distracting
Are you talking about when there is just the list of links is first 
and

you must scroll to get the first screen of content?


For me, it's any link that scrolls the page. I'm old enough to get 
disoriented, I guess. The exception, of course, is skip links designed 
and implemented to be accessible only to assistive devices and 
keyboard surfers.


--
Al 



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote:
 Thierry Koblentz said:
 Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these
 articles or that I am plain wrong?
 Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion
 based on that misintrepretation.

I disagree.

 Further, you are defending your opinion by simply being contrary and
 nothing more (e.g. your claim that divs are hacks; you use skip links
 on your site but are argueing here that every link must load an
 entirely new document).

Wow! This time you're seriously wrong.
What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I interpret
the USEIT articles. FYI, I'm not only using skip links, but also popup
windows. Does that make me unaware of the issues related to both?

 the popup window reference is irrelevant.
 If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links
 If you replaced it with chocolate orange cake it would make sense
 according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how
 wrong that logic is.

I disagree, and FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly. One can click on a
jump link, not on a chocolate orange cake.

 What you are calling jump links are nothing more than hypertext
 links. Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. W3C define
 hypertext links like this: A link is a connection from one web
 resource to another [1]... The destination anchor of a link may be an
 element within an HTML document.[2]

That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with
usability/accessibility. It is about how things are supposed to  work, not
how they are supposed to be implemented. For example, accesskey is a proper
attribute, part of the recommendations, but there are
usability/accessibility issues attached to it, isn't? And there are other
examples...

 It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*
 Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed
 that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of
 links to resources within a page is a convention for the web.

So how can you say that jump links in a document are consistent with the
navigation links for example? Users click on the latter and are taken to
another page, they click on the former and are taken in a different location
on the same page. How consistent is that?

Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to happen
when he clicks on something that is going to do anything else than loading a
*new* document. We see that with links that open popup windows so why should
we think it should be different with other behaviors? In short, I believe
that a FAQ page that says clicking on the Qs will reveals the As below is
less an issue than jump links that do not warn the user of what's gonna
happen next.

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote:
 Thierry Koblentz said:
 Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these
 articles or that I am plain wrong?
 Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion
 based on that misintrepretation.

I disagree.

 Further, you are defending your opinion by simply being contrary and
 nothing more (e.g. your claim that divs are hacks; you use skip links
 on your site but are argueing here that every link must load an
 entirely new document).

Wow! This time you're seriously wrong.
What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I interpret
the USEIT articles. FYI, I'm not only using skip links, but also popup
windows. Does that make me unaware of the issues related to both?

 the popup window reference is irrelevant.
 If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links
 If you replaced it with chocolate orange cake it would make sense
 according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how
 wrong that logic is.

I disagree, and FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly. One can click on a
jump link, not on a chocolate orange cake.

 What you are calling jump links are nothing more than hypertext
 links. Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. W3C define
 hypertext links like this: A link is a connection from one web
 resource to another [1]... The destination anchor of a link may be an
 element within an HTML document.[2]

That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with
usability/accessibility. It is about how things are supposed to  work, not
how they are supposed to be implemented. For example, accesskey is a proper
attribute, part of the recommendations, but there are
usability/accessibility issues attached to it, isn't? And there are other
examples...

 It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*
 Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed
 that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of
 links to resources within a page is a convention for the web.

So how can you say that jump links in a document are consistent with the
navigation links for example? Users click on the latter and are taken to
another page, they click on the former and are taken in a different location
on the same page. How consistent is that?

Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to happen
when he clicks on something that is going to do anything else than loading a
*new* document. We see that with links that open popup windows so why should
we think it should be different with other behaviors? In short, I believe
that a FAQ page that says clicking on the Qs will reveals the As below is
less an issue than jump links that do not warn the user of what's gonna
happen next.

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Al Sparber

From: Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED]

If a web designer further distinguished between links that jump 
within a page vs. those that load a new page, would that obviate 
your objection?


It would mitigate it. I find it easier to tolerate a FAQ or Q/A thing 
if it's apparent that all of the questions are links to answers far 
down the page. So if I see a compact list of 20 questions and a long 
scrollbar, I'm prepared for the page to scroll when I click a link.


In other words, is the problem the mixture of link types leading to 
frustrations of expectation, or is the problem with the local link 
itself?


It's more an issue of mixing the link types.

--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling 
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday.





**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Jay Gilmore




Hey Tierry and Terrance, 

This is a respectful suggestion. Since Jakob Nielsen is not dead and
Useit.com is not the King James Bible, Talmud, Torah, Quaran etc., why
not email him and get his opinion on this. In fact, I asked his opinion
on this recent adlinks phenomena just today, where sites are using
scripts to place / selling ads linking to sites that don't relate
specifically to the article. He responded briefly within two hours. 

All the best,

Jay

Thierry Koblentz wrote:

  Terrence Wood wrote:
  
  
  
Wow! This time you're seriously wrong.
What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I interpret
the USEIT articles. FYI, I'm not only using skip links, but also popup
windows. Does that make me unaware of the issues related to both?

  
  

  the popup window reference is irrelevant.
If you simply replace "opening new windows" with "using jump links"
  

If you replaced it with "chocolate orange cake" it would make sense
according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how
wrong that logic is.

  
  
I disagree, and FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly. One can click on a
"jump link", not on a "chocolate orange cake".

  
  
What you are calling "jump links" are nothing more than hypertext
links. Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. W3C define
hypertext links like this: "A link is a connection from one web
resource to another [1]... The destination anchor of a link may be an
element within an HTML document.[2]"

  
  
That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with
usability/accessibility. It is about how things are supposed to  work, not
how they are supposed to be implemented. For example, accesskey is a proper
attribute, part of the recommendations, but there are
usability/accessibility issues attached to it, isn't? And there are other
examples...

  
  

  It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*
  

Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed
that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of
links to resources within a page is a convention for the web.

  
  
So how can you say that "jump links" in a document are consistent with the
navigation links for example? Users click on the latter and are taken to
another page, they click on the former and are taken in a different location
on the same page. How consistent is that?

Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to happen
when he clicks on something that is going to do anything else than loading a
*new* document. We see that with links that open popup windows so why should
we think it should be different with other "behaviors"? In short, I believe
that a FAQ page that says "clicking on the Qs will reveals the As below" is
less an issue than "jump links" that do not warn the user of what's gonna
happen next.

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**





  





Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Terrence Wood
Thierry Koblentz said:
 Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion
 based on that misintrepretation.
 I disagree.
So you keep saying, but your actions are different.

 you use skip links on your site but are argueing here that every
 link must load an entirely new document.
 What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I
 interpret the USEIT articles.
I never said it did. What I said is you are practicing the opposite of
what you are preaching.

 If you replaced it with chocolate orange cake it would make sense
 according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how
 wrong that logic is.
 I disagree
in fact, you *do* agree with me, you just seem unable to see how it
relates to the argument you are putting forward... Read on
 FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly.
Exactly. As is your assertion that a recommendation against opening new
windows is a recommendation against using in-page anchors. Substituting
anything in Nielsens recommendation distorts the recommendation: it *is
not* what he said, and it *does not* make sense. using jump links is not
the same as opening new windows and it clearly isn't chocolate orange
cake.

 Hypertext links are the foundation of the web.
 That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with
 usability/accessibility.
Web Standards. Consistency. Platform conventions. The thing that defines
the web.
 It is about how things are supposed to work
Exactly. If things work the way they are supposed to, then you can't get
much more usable than that.

 [accesskey's have] usability/accessibility issues attached
Yes they do, but that is a browser implementation issue, not a markup
issue. e.g. Macs browser's and Opera's accesskey implemenatation do not
conflict with the OS like other PC browsers.

 So how can you say that jump links in a document are consistent with
 the navigation links for example?
They don't have to be, in the same way that main nav, secondary nav, and
in-content links are generally easy to distinguish and understand: they
should be consistent within the context in which they appear (internally
consistent within a block?).

That said, you might have to hack in a div or heading here and there. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#toctitle

 Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to
 happen... a FAQ page that says clicking on the Qs will reveals the As
 below is less an issue than jump links that do not warn the user of
 what's gonna happen next.

When a user clicks on a link they *know* they will be taken to the
resource described by that hypertext link. It doesn't even need an
explantion because it is so fundamental.


kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote:
 Thierry Koblentz said:
 Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an
 opinion based on that misintrepretation.
 I disagree.
 So you keep saying, but your actions are different.

I'm not sure I agree with that.
Please see the bottom of this message.

 you use skip links on your site but are argueing here that every
 link must load an entirely new document.
 What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I
 interpret the USEIT articles.
 I never said it did. What I said is you are practicing the opposite of
 what you are preaching.

I think you may be misinterpreting.
I am *not* preaching anything, I am *not* saying what should be done or
used, I am only arguing about the fact that jump links have been presented
in this thread as a usability-free solution. That's all.

 If you replaced it with chocolate orange cake it would make sense
 according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how
 wrong that logic is.
 I disagree
 in fact, you *do* agree with me, you just seem unable to see how it
 relates to the argument you are putting forward... Read on
 FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly.
 Exactly. As is your assertion that a recommendation against opening
 new windows is a recommendation against using in-page anchors.
 Substituting anything in Nielsens recommendation distorts the
 recommendation: it *is not* what he said, and it *does not* make
 sense. using jump links is not the same as opening new windows
 and it clearly isn't chocolate orange cake.

I respectfully disagree for the following reasons:
Following Jay's excellent advice, I wrote an email to Jacob Nielsen telling
him about my interpretation of both of his articles.
I explain the little issue we were discussing here and asked him if he
could find the time to answer this question:
My interpretation of these articles is that the reference to popup windows
does not exclude jump links from being an issue themselves in regard to
usability.

Less than half an hour later, I received his brief answer:
quote
You are right: links within the same page almost always cause confusion in
user testing, and it is almost always best to avoid them.
/quote

 Hypertext links are the foundation of the web.
 That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with
 usability/accessibility.
 Web Standards. Consistency. Platform conventions. The thing that
 defines the web.
 It is about how things are supposed to work
 Exactly. If things work the way they are supposed to, then you can't
 get much more usable than that.

I respectfully disagree for the following reasons:
In an ideal world, things work the way they are supposed to; unfortunatley
the Web is not an ideal world and in my opinion there are 2 paths:
recommendations and best practice. The latter usually address
usability/accessibility issue.

 [accesskey's have] usability/accessibility issues attached
 Yes they do, but that is a browser implementation issue, not a markup
 issue. e.g. Macs browser's and Opera's accesskey implemenatation do
 not conflict with the OS like other PC browsers.

What about assistive devices? Setting accesskeys that clash with user's
shortcut keys? What about implementing redundant mechanisms that break
keyboard navigation (onkeypress)? What about about implementing skip link
that follow the recommendations but also break keyboard navigation. These
are usability issues that often come up simply because authors implement
techniques relying too much on recommendations.

 So how can you say that jump links in a document are consistent
 with the navigation links for example?
 They don't have to be, in the same way that main nav, secondary nav,
 and in-content links are generally easy to distinguish and
 understand: they should be consistent within the context in which
 they appear (internally consistent within a block?).

 That said, you might have to hack in a div or heading here and there.
 See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#toctitle

 Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to
 happen... a FAQ page that says clicking on the Qs will reveals the
 As below is less an issue than jump links that do not warn the
 user of what's gonna happen next.

 When a user clicks on a link they *know* they will be taken to the
 resource described by that hypertext link. It doesn't even need an
 explantion because it is so fundamental.

Apparently Jacob Nielsen doesn't agree on these points...

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-08 Thread Terrence Wood
Thierry Koblentz said:
 Is it de facto *the* option because 2 people on this list
 said so?
It's a pretty common design pattern, and no-one challenged it. But
discuss vs. mention is a pedantic argument - let's move on.

 USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading
 a new document in the same browser window.
News to me, I have never heard of such a recommendation. Googling USEIT
doesn't support you on this point either.

 IMHO, when a user clicks on a question that reveals the answer right
 below it he knows that he's still viewing the same
 document, because the surrounding elements did not change.
 I believe  clicking on a link that jumps way down the page
 may bit a bit more confusing for the average user.
Revealing content means the surrounding elements *do* change. Following a
hypertext link is the single most understood aspect of the web. In fact,
it is it's defining feature - hence HyperText Markup Language.

What about if the question is at the very bottom of the viewport and the
content is reveal below the window chrome? What about screenreader users
who are, in effect, reading a copy of the page as it first loads?


 I see a relationship between a DT and a DD that I don't see
 between a heading and a paragraph.
Huh? What is the purpose of headings then? Headings and paras precede the
web and definition lists. It is an inherent feature of reading and
writing.

Definition List comes with a bonus,  a natural wrapper (the DL).
Adding a div is hardly a hack - W3C says a div offers a generic mechanism
for adding extra structure to documents. Half a dozen one way, six the
other.

 But then you create redundancy for the sake of visual browsers.
No, the redundancy is acutally for the opposite of visual browsers, but
ultimately every browser/user benefits.

kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-08 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote:
 USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading
 a new document in the same browser window.

 News to me, I have never heard of such a recommendation. Googling
 USEIT doesn't support you on this point either.

Links that don't behave as expected undermine users' understanding of their
own system. A link should be a simple hypertext reference that replaces the
current page with new content. Users hate unwarranted pop-up windows.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223.html (#6)
A link should be a simple hypertext reference that *replaces the current
page* with new content. English is not my native language so I may be
missing some subtle nuances here, but it seems to me that Jump links do
not fit the bill.

 Interaction consistency is an additional reason it's wrong to open new
browser windows: the standard result of clicking a link is that the
destination page replaces the origination page in the same browser window.
Anything else is a violation of the users' expectations and makes them feel
insecure in their mastery of the Web. 
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html (#3)
In this short section the author says *twice* that it is all about
*consistency*, and again he use the words *replace the origination page*; so
my understanding of that document is that jump links are considered by the
author as bad as popup windows.

Note that my point is not to say that showing/hiding elements is better than
using jump links, I'm just saying that - IMO - jump links are not issue
free as it has been suggested.

  IMHO, when a user clicks on a question that reveals the answer right
 below it he knows that he's still viewing the same
 document, because the surrounding elements did not change.
 I believe  clicking on a link that jumps way down the page
 may bit a bit more confusing for the average user.

 Revealing content means the surrounding elements *do* change.
 Following a hypertext link is the single most understood aspect of
 the web. In fact, it is it's defining feature - hence HyperText
 Markup Language.

Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to
*replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another
part of the same document.
Anyway, I guess you missed my point. The *only* elements that move are the
ones below the Qs, users can see that the elements above are still there,
the navigation menu still appears in the exact same place in the sidebar
etc. They may be surprised by what just happend, but they know for a fact
that they didn't leave that document. IMO, this is very different when they
click on a link that takes them way down the page, they lose all visual
bearings.

 What about if the question is at the very bottom of the viewport and
 the content is reveal below the window chrome? What about

My guess is that if that question is at the bottom of the viewport there is
a good chance that the user already knows how it works (for having clicked
on previous questions). The Open All link at the top of the document is an
extra hint.

 screenreader users who are, in effect, reading a copy of the page as
 it first loads?

I don't know, you tell me. As far as I know the Qs  As are fully accessible
to screen-readers users with or without script support, with or without
styles applied.

 I see a relationship between a DT and a DD that I don't see
 between a heading and a paragraph.

 Huh? What is the purpose of headings then? Headings and paras precede
 the web and definition lists. It is an inherent feature of reading and
 writing.

I didn't say they had no purpose, I said that I didn't see the same
relationship between the 2. Do you see the same relationship between them?

 Definition List comes with a bonus,  a natural wrapper (the DL).

 Adding a div is hardly a hack - W3C says a div offers a generic
 mechanism for adding extra structure to documents. Half a dozen one
 way, six the other.

I appreciate the fact that you think discuss vs. mention is a pedantic
argument but that structural hack (a DIV) vs. generic mechanism for
adding extra structure to a document is not.
;)

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-08 Thread Terrence Wood
Thierry Koblentz said:
 A link should be a simple hypertext reference that *replaces the current
 page* with new content. English is not my native language so I may be
 missing some subtle nuances here

Yes, you have completely missed the point of the recommendation. You are
misquoting a recommendation against using javascript links to open new
windows. The replacing the current page part of the quote means not a
page opened via javascript.

 Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to
 *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to
 another part of the same document.
Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are talking
about not opening new windows.

 I'm just saying that jump links are not issue free
If your opinion is based on your understanding of the USEIT article, you
are misinformed.


kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-08 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote:

 Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature
 is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the
 user to another part of the same document.
 Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are
 talking about not opening new windows.

 I'm just saying that jump links are not issue free
 If your opinion is based on your understanding of the USEIT article,
 you are misinformed.

Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or
that I am plain wrong?
Of course I can be wrong, but IMO the popup window reference is irrelevant.
If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links you'll
see that both articles make as much sense .
It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*, atleast
that's how I read it...

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-08 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote:

 Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature
 is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the
 user to another part of the same document.
 Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are
 talking about not opening new windows.

 I'm just saying that jump links are not issue free
 If your opinion is based on your understanding of the USEIT article,
 you are misinformed.

Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or
that I am plain wrong?
Of course I can be wrong, but IMO the popup window reference is irrelevant.
If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links you'll
see that both articles make as much sense .
It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*, atleast
that's how I read it...

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Terrence Wood
Justin Carter said:
 It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with
 invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which
 I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole
 bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on
 the page.

Agreed. One of the basic tenents of usability is to prevent errors.
Breaking basic browser funtionality (find function) contravenes this...
The rest is fixing what you just broke isn't it?


kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Al Sparber

From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]



Justin Carter said:

It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with
invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless 
(which
I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a 
whole
bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question 
on

the page.


Agreed. One of the basic tenents of usability is to prevent errors.
Breaking basic browser funtionality (find function) contravenes 
this...

The rest is fixing what you just broke isn't it?


From a very strict accessibility/usability persepctive you make an 
excellent point. However, a marketing-oriented person wanting to show 
6 major headlines above the fold would probably eat you for lunch in a 
meeting to decide whether to use this feature on a commercial site 
:-) I also agree that for the type of site which targets people in our 
business, it should not be used.


--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling 
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday.





**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Terrence Wood
 a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch
I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing =)

Besides, a solution for getting topics above the fold has already been
discussed in this thread.

kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Al Sparber

From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]



a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch

I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing =)


I spent 20 years designing and building some of the most upscale food 
markets in America. So let's call it a push and move on, eh?


--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling 
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday.





**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Terrence Wood
Al Sparber said:
 I spent 20 years designing and building some of the most upscale food
 markets in America. So let's call it a push and move on, eh?

Your foo beats mine Al =)

kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Al Sparber

From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]



Al Sparber said:
I spent 20 years designing and building some of the most upscale 
food

markets in America. So let's call it a push and move on, eh?


Your foo beats mine Al =)


You are a gentleman and a scholar :-)


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote:
 a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch
 I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing =)

 Besides, a solution for getting topics above the fold has already been
 discussed in this thread.

Which one are you referring to?
A serie of anchor links at the top of the page that jump down to the
required content.?
AFAIK, it has been mentionned but not discussed; and FWIW, I don't think
it is better in term of usability/accessibility, and what about semantic? I
believe the document is more coherent with the answers following the
questions rather than split in 2 groups,: the questions, the answers. Which
brings a out of context issue that doesn't exist with a Definition List.
And since we're talking about browser feature, what about printing the
page? ;)

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Terrence Wood
Thierry Koblentz said:
 AFAIK, it has been mentionned but not discussed;
Please.

I don't think it is better in term of usability/accessibility, and what
about semantic?
Why not? And what about semantics?

 I believe the document is more coherent with the answers following the
 questions rather than split in 2 groups,: the questions, the answers.
No-one said anything about decoupling the QA. The suggestion was about
*adding* a list of links to page content, not unlike those found on
wikipedia for example.

 Which brings a out of context issue that doesn't exist with a
 Definition List.
See above. I'm not sure there was agreement that a definition list is the
semantic answer. What about headings for Q's and paras for A's. The
heading can be viewed in a document outline (by some browsers), and it
avoids the whole Q/A is not a term/definition argument. I'm not entirely
sure what you mean by out of context - I'm guessing you are stuck on the
idea that the Q's can only appear once on the page?

 And since we're talking about browser feature, what about printing the
 page? ;)
Easily solved with CSS for print media.


kind regards
Terrence Wood


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Al Sparber

From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See above. I'm not sure there was agreement that a definition list 
is the

semantic answer. What about headings for Q's and paras for A's. The
heading can be viewed in a document outline (by some browsers), and 
it
avoids the whole Q/A is not a term/definition argument. I'm not 
entirely
sure what you mean by out of context - I'm guessing you are stuck 
on the

idea that the Q's can only appear once on the page?


Here's another approach you're sure not to like :-)
http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/swapclass/outline/

--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling 
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday.





**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Joshua Street
On 2/8/06, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Here's another approach you're sure not to like :-)
 http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/swapclass/outline/

Hmm... it'd be nicer if there weren't anchor tags in there/the H3 were
used directly. Not being amazingly JavaScript saavy, is there a
compelling reason why not?
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Terrence Wood
Al Sparber said:
 Here's another approach you're sure not to like :-)
 http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/swapclass/outline/

Presume you are talking to me? Don't get me wrong Al, I love the
interactive aspect of the net and that is, in fact, what drew me to it in
the first place.

I'm not going to stand on some philosophcal high ground and automatically
dismiss solutions like this (I have built similar in the past, and
probably will in the future), but like all things it needs to be
considered in context.

If I was confident the users were able to use this type of device and it
sat well within the design and served a purpose then I wouldn't hesitate
to use expanding and collapsing divs. I'd add an onfocus event though ;-)

kind regards
Terrence Wood.



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote:
 Thierry Koblentz said:
 AFAIK, it has been mentionned but not discussed;
 Please.

Please what? I'm sorry but AFAIK when this option came up nobody mentionned
its pros and cons. Is it de facto *the* option because 2 people on this list
said so?
If I remember correctly, there was an alert box on USEIT years ago that said
that clicking a link should have the only effect of loading a new document
in the same browser window. IMHO, when a user clicks on a question that
reveals the answer right below it he knows that he's still viewing the same
document, because the surrounding elements did not change. I believe
clicking on a link that jumps way down the page may bit a bit more confusing
for the average user.

 I don't think it is better in term of usability/accessibility, and
 what
 about semantic?
 Why not? And what about semantics?

For example, I see a relationship between a DT and a DD that I don't see
between a heading and a paragraph. Also, I believe the Definition List comes
with a bonus, a natural wrapper (the DL). If the author needs to group
the Qs  As there is no need for a hack.

 I believe the document is more coherent with the answers following
 the questions rather than split in 2 groups,: the questions, the
 answers.
 No-one said anything about decoupling the QA. The suggestion was
 about *adding* a list of links to page content, not unlike those
 found on wikipedia for example.

But then you create redundancy for the sake of visual browsers.

 Which brings a out of context issue that doesn't exist with a
 Definition List.
 See above. I'm not sure there was agreement that a definition list is
 the semantic answer. What about headings for Q's and paras for A's.
 The heading can be viewed in a document outline (by some browsers),
 and it avoids the whole Q/A is not a term/definition argument. I'm
 not entirely sure what you mean by out of context - I'm guessing
 you are stuck on the idea that the Q's can only appear once on the
 page?

The advantage I can see regarding the use of headings  for the Qs is that
some users could cycle through them (Jaws users for example).

 And since we're talking about browser feature, what about printing
 the page? ;)
 Easily solved with CSS for print media.

True. And with that extra markup, it's not an extra hook that would make a
difference ;)

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread R Walker (RMW Web Publishing)
A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the
inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature.
Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite
large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to
a keyword they are looking for. If that search result is in a hidden
element the browser will not show it - making the page less usable.

  Also it is helpful to use anchors on each Q  A (esp. if you have
Customer Service Reps directing users to the page). To make the page
more useful, you could allow for bookmarks and emailed URLs to expand
an answer by checking the URL 'hash' for the related question.

--
Rowan Walker
RMW Web Publishing
http://www.rmwpublishing.net
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread WINTER-GILES,Ben
I'd have to challenge the statement about users normally using the
browsers find feature.

The majority of users that I have (or had rather) to accommodate for,
didn't even know that their browser had a find feature. Instead
preferring to use scroll and skim behaviours to locate information.

Not wanting to debunk what you were saying, of course, but I think it
would be less than complete to band everyone into the group that
actually know that Ctl+F finds things within a page.

The most recent iteration of FAQ's that we implemented had toggles
delivered via css / div. but that said, we also included a find / search
field to help expose what was hidden. Additionally we used a well versed
information architect to review our headings and ensure we were using
appropriate terminology to head up each FAQ.

Feedback on that implementation was generally positive. 

That said the target user group was internal, and 40+ female
administrative / data worker from a mainframe background and NOT the
general public.

I have not located detailed ebehavior reports addressing the find
option within the more global public. Does anyone have this data?

Ben Winter-Giles
Interface Design Manager
DEWR.gov.au 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R Walker (RMW Web
Publishing)
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:25
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability
to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature.
Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite
large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to a
keyword they are looking for. If that search result is in a hidden
element the browser will not show it - making the page less usable.

  Also it is helpful to use anchors on each Q  A (esp. if you have
Customer Service Reps directing users to the page). To make the page
more useful, you could allow for bookmarks and emailed URLs to expand an
answer by checking the URL 'hash' for the related question.

--
Rowan Walker
RMW Web Publishing
http://www.rmwpublishing.net
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**


Notice:
The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege.  If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised.  If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Samuel Richardson
Just because a large subset of your users don't use a particular 
function on your web browser is not a good justification to disable its use.


If a larger number of your users are skimming the headlines then 
clicking to find more details about a particular entry then post a 
series of anchor links at the top of the page that jump down to the 
required content. This is a: a fairly standard way of doing FAQs on the 
web and b: doesn't stop various browser features from working.




WINTER-GILES,Ben wrote:


I'd have to challenge the statement about users normally using the
browsers find feature.

The majority of users that I have (or had rather) to accommodate for,
didn't even know that their browser had a find feature. Instead
preferring to use scroll and skim behaviours to locate information.

Not wanting to debunk what you were saying, of course, but I think it
would be less than complete to band everyone into the group that
actually know that Ctl+F finds things within a page.

The most recent iteration of FAQ's that we implemented had toggles
delivered via css / div. but that said, we also included a find / search
field to help expose what was hidden. Additionally we used a well versed
information architect to review our headings and ensure we were using
appropriate terminology to head up each FAQ.

Feedback on that implementation was generally positive. 


That said the target user group was internal, and 40+ female
administrative / data worker from a mainframe background and NOT the
general public.

I have not located detailed ebehavior reports addressing the find
option within the more global public. Does anyone have this data?

Ben Winter-Giles
Interface Design Manager
DEWR.gov.au 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R Walker (RMW Web
Publishing)
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:25
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability
to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature.
Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite
large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to a
keyword they are looking for. If that search result is in a hidden
element the browser will not show it - making the page less usable.

 Also it is helpful to use anchors on each Q  A (esp. if you have
Customer Service Reps directing users to the page). To make the page
more useful, you could allow for bookmarks and emailed URLs to expand an
answer by checking the URL 'hash' for the related question.

--
Rowan Walker
RMW Web Publishing
http://www.rmwpublishing.net
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**


Notice:
The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege.  If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised.  If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**


 



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread WINTER-GILES,Ben
True. But I wasn't talking about disabling any features at all. 

And if the toggles are done correctly I understand that the find
functions will still behave correctly, because the headings will have
appropriate key words in them anyway. Presuming of course you have them
written descriptively. 

One could also argue (for the sake of it) that if your toggled page
extends so far as to warrant a large anchor listing at the top of the
page, perhaps the information segmentation is not quite up to scratch
either.

To me, the core of this discussion revolves around there not being one
way to skin the cat here. (apologies to any cat owners) Which simply
reinforces the case for web standards that are constructed in a modular
fashion to facilitate delivery of information in varied formats to
accommodate for the intended user groups.

benwg

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:53
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

Just because a large subset of your users don't use a particular
function on your web browser is not a good justification to disable its
use.

If a larger number of your users are skimming the headlines then
clicking to find more details about a particular entry then post a
series of anchor links at the top of the page that jump down to the
required content. This is a: a fairly standard way of doing FAQs on the
web and b: doesn't stop various browser features from working.



WINTER-GILES,Ben wrote:

I'd have to challenge the statement about users normally using the 
browsers find feature.

The majority of users that I have (or had rather) to accommodate for, 
didn't even know that their browser had a find feature. Instead 
preferring to use scroll and skim behaviours to locate information.

Not wanting to debunk what you were saying, of course, but I think it 
would be less than complete to band everyone into the group that 
actually know that Ctl+F finds things within a page.

The most recent iteration of FAQ's that we implemented had toggles 
delivered via css / div. but that said, we also included a find / 
search field to help expose what was hidden. Additionally we used a 
well versed information architect to review our headings and ensure we 
were using appropriate terminology to head up each FAQ.

Feedback on that implementation was generally positive. 

That said the target user group was internal, and 40+ female 
administrative / data worker from a mainframe background and NOT the 
general public.

I have not located detailed ebehavior reports addressing the find
option within the more global public. Does anyone have this data?

Ben Winter-Giles
Interface Design Manager
DEWR.gov.au

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R Walker (RMW Web
Publishing)
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:25
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the 
inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature.
Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite 
large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to a

keyword they are looking for. If that search result is in a hidden 
element the browser will not show it - making the page less usable.

  Also it is helpful to use anchors on each Q  A (esp. if you have 
Customer Service Reps directing users to the page). To make the page 
more useful, you could allow for bookmarks and emailed URLs to expand 
an answer by checking the URL 'hash' for the related question.

--
Rowan Walker
RMW Web Publishing
http://www.rmwpublishing.net
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**


Notice:
The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files

may be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal 
professional privilege.  If you are not the intended recipient any use,

disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised.  If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by 
reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission together with
any attachments.


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**


  


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Samuel Richardson

Replies in body,


And if the toggles are done correctly I understand that the find
functions will still behave correctly, because the headings will have
appropriate key words in them anyway. Presuming of course you have them
written descriptively. 
 

Your effectively disabling it because it is either going to highlight 
the hidden content inside the div (where you won't be able to see it) or 
ignore that completely, either way you can't effectively search on the 
content that is hidden, only the headers.



One could also argue (for the sake of it) that if your toggled page
extends so far as to warrant a large anchor listing at the top of the
page, perhaps the information segmentation is not quite up to scratch
either.

To me, the core of this discussion revolves around there not being one
way to skin the cat here. (apologies to any cat owners) Which simply
reinforces the case for web standards that are constructed in a modular
fashion to facilitate delivery of information in varied formats to
accommodate for the intended user groups.
 

Zah? I thought this was about showing/hiding content within divs. Not 
matter how well written your content/headings whatever, you shouldn't 
disable parts of the browser interface. I've read that sentence above 
about three times and I can't understand it.


Samuel
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Al Sparber

From: Samuel Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Zah? I thought this was about showing/hiding content within divs. 
Not matter how well written your content/headings whatever, you 
shouldn't disable parts of the browser interface. I've read that 
sentence above about three times and I can't understand it.


For the few people who might take offense at this kind of 
interactivity (likely web developers who are passionate about 
usability), it might not be an issue worth agonizing over. It's 
accessible to both the blind and to keyboard users. It's one of those 
judgement calls best left to the client and not to a committee of 
standards experts  :-)


--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling 
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday.







**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Thierry Koblentz
R Walker (RMW Web Publishing) wrote:
 A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the
 inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature.
 Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite
 large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to
 a keyword they are looking for. If that search result is in a hidden
 element the browser will not show it - making the page less usable.

You should revisit that page.
http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/toggle_elements.asp
I'm not disabling any browser feature, there is an Open All link to let
the user expand all the DDs before using Ctrl + F

   Also it is helpful to use anchors on each Q  A (esp. if you have
 Customer Service Reps directing users to the page). To make the page
 more useful, you could allow for bookmarks and emailed URLs to expand
 an answer by checking the URL 'hash' for the related question.

I don't see any problem here either. A short script could check past #,
find the matching named anchor in the document and expand the next node...

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Justin Carter
It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with
invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which
I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole
bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on
the page.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Jan Brasna

A short script could check past #


... as eg. Moo.FX does - http://moofx.mad4milk.net/#introduction

So it's pretty easy to add.

--
Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Christian Montoya
On 2/7/06, Justin Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with
 invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which
 I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole
 bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on
 the page.

Did you see Thierry's reply? There's an open all link, which anyone
who has even a slight knowledge of unobtrusive JS could have added
themselves.

Thierry is just providing a tool, and it is up to the end designer to
decide how to use it. Don't put all the flame on Thierry for going
through a lot of trouble for making what might be the best show/hide
page ever. If you know what works best, you too can take Thierry's
solution and serve up an FAQ page that might be just slightly better
than a laundry list of qa's AND not go against your preferences.

Anyway, thanks Thierry for putting all this together, I know sometimes
clients want this functionality and this is something I might use in
the future.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**



RE: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-02 Thread Focas, Grant
It's very nice Thierry.
IE/Mac cannot access it via keyboard though.
The only way I see around it is:
a) Ignore IE/Mac as it's now officially unsupported
b) Add an onkeypress event, check for enter key, do stuff. Messy.
 
Grant

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2006 03:23
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

Following a bug report (not in the script, but in a browser), I have
made
a few changes to the original solution; it now uses images and seems to
work
in everything but Opera 6.05.

http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/toggle_elements.asp

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

**
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**